Predictors of the efficacy of His bundle pacing in patients with a prolonged PR interval: A stratified analysis of the HOPE-HF randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled HOPE-HF trial assessed the benefit of atrio-ventricular (AV) delay optimization delivered using His bundle pacing. It recruited patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, PR interval ≥200 ms, and baseline QRS ≤140 ms or right bundle branch block. Overall, there was no significant increase in peak oxygen uptake (VO2max) but there was significant improvement in heart failure specific quality of life. In this pre-specified secondary analysis, we evaluated the impact of baseline PR interval, echocardiographic E-A fusion, and the magnitude of acute high-precision haemodynamic response to pacing, on outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: All 167 randomized participants underwent measurement of PR interval, acute haemodynamic response at optimized AV delay, and assessment of presence of E-A fusion. We tested the impact of these baseline parameters using a Bayesian ordinal model on VO2max, quality of life and activity measures. There was strong evidence of a beneficial interaction between the baseline acute haemodynamic response and the blinded benefit of pacing for VO2 (Pr 99.9%), Minnesota Living With Heart Failure (MLWHF) (Pr 99.8%), MLWHF physical limitation score (Pr 98.9%), EQ-5D visual analogue scale (Pr 99.6%), and exercise time (Pr 99.4%). The baseline PR interval and the presence of baseline E-A fusion did not have this reliable ability to predict the clinical benefit of pacing over placebo across multiple endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: In the HOPE-HF trial, the acute haemodynamic response to pacing reliably identified patients who obtained clinical benefit. Patients with a long PR interval (≥200 ms) and left ventricular impairment who obtained acute haemodynamic improvement with AV-optimized His bundle pacing were likely to obtain clinical benefit, consistent across multiple endpoints. Importantly, this gradation can be reliably tested for before randomization, but does require high-precision AV-optimized haemodynamic assessment to be performed.

His bundle pacing versus left bundle branch area pacing in patients undergoing atrioventricular node ablation: A prospective and comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Pacemaker implantation combined with atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) is a well-established strategy for uncontrolled atrial arrhythmias. Limited data are available regarding His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in this setting. AIM: To compare the outcomes of HBP and LBBAP in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation combined with AVN in routine clinical practice. METHODS: We prospectively included all patients who underwent AVNA after successful conduction system pacing (CSP) in two hospitals between September 2017 and May 2023. The primary outcome was the 1-year composite of first episode of heart failure hospitalization, symptomatic atrioventricular node reconduction requiring a second AVNA procedure, lead revision or death from any cause. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients underwent AVNA following successful CSP (68 HBP and 96 LBBAP). Mean pacemaker implantation and AVNA procedure times were shorter in the LBBAP group than the HBP group (46±18 vs 59±23min; P<0.001 and 31±12 vs 43±22min, respectively; P<0.001). Complete atrioventricular block was more frequently obtained in the LBBAP group (88/96 patients [92%] vs 54/68 patients [79%]; P=0.04). One-year freedom from the composite outcome was more frequent in the LBBAP group (89.7% vs 72.9%; hazard ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.72; P=0.01). The strategy was similarly effective in both groups with a significant improvement in NYHA class and left ventricular ejection fraction. A secondary pacing threshold elevation >1V occurred only in the HBP group (11%). CONCLUSION: In this prospective, comparative study, LBBAP provided better 1-year outcomes than HBP.

Conduction System Pacing: Hope, Challenges, and the Journey Forward.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Cardiac pacing has evolved in recent years currently culminating in the specific stimulation of the cardiac conduction system (conduction system pacing, CSP). This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the available literature on CSP, focusing on a critical classification of studies comparing CSP with standard treatment in the two fields of pacing for bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure. The article will also elaborate specific benefits and limitations associated with CSP modalities of His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). RECENT FINDINGS: Based on a growing number of observational studies for different indications of pacing therapy, both CSP modalities investigated are advantageous over standard treatment in terms of narrowing the paced QRS complex and preserving or improving left ventricular systolic function. Less consistent evidence exists with regard to the improvement of heart failure-related rehospitalization rates or mortality, and effect sizes vary between HBP and LBBAP. LBBAP is superior over HBP in terms of lead measurements and procedural duration. With regard to all reported outcomes, evidence from large scale randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) is still scarce. CSP has the potential to sustainably improve patient care in cardiac pacing therapy if patients are appropriately selected and limitations are considered. With this review, we offer not only a summary of existing data, but also an outlook on probable future developments in the field, as well as a detailed summary of upcoming RCTs that provide insights into how the journey of CSP continues.

Is conduction system pacing a panacea for pacemaker therapy?

INTRODUCTION: While supported by robust evidence and decades of clinical experience, right ventricular apical pacing for bradycardia is associated with a risk of progressive left ventricular dysfunction. Cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction can result in limited electrical resynchronization due to anatomical constraints and epicardial stimulation. In both settings, directly stimulating the conduction system below the atrio-ventricular node (either the bundle of His or the left bundle branch area) has potential to overcome these limitations. Conduction system pacing has met with considerable enthusiasm in view of the more physiological electrical conduction pattern, is rapidly becoming the preferred option of pacing for bradycardia, and is gaining momentum as an alternative to conventional biventricular pacing. AREAS COVERED: This article provides a review of the current efficacy and safety data for both people requiring treatment for bradycardia and the management of heart failure with conduction delay and discusses the possible future roles for conduction system pacing in routine clinical practice. EXPERT OPINION: Conduction system pacing might be the holy grail of pacemaker therapy without the disadvantages of current approaches. However, hypothesis and enthusiasm are no match for robust data, demonstrating at least equivalent efficacy and safety to standard approaches.

Extraction of His Bundle Pacing Lead: More Difficult than Coronary Sinus Lead Extraction: An Analysis of 3897 Lead Extraction Procedures Including 27 His and 253 Coronary Sinus Lead Removals.

BACKGROUND: Experience with the transvenous extraction of leads used for His bundle pacing (HBP) is limited. METHODS: Analysis of 3897 extractions including 27 HBP and 253 LVP (left ventricular pacing) leads. RESULTS: The main reason for HBP lead extraction was lead failure (59.26%). The age of HBP and LVP leads (54.52 vs. 50.20 months) was comparable, whereas procedure difficulties were related to the LVP lead dwell time. The extraction of HBP leads > 40 months old was longer than the removal of younger leads (8.57 vs. 3.87 min), procedure difficulties occurred in 14.29%, and advanced tools were required in 28.57%. There were no major complications. The extraction time of dysfunctional or infected leads was similar in the HBP and LVP groups (log-rank p = 0.868) but shorter when compared to groups with other leads. Survival after the procedure did not differ between HBP and LVP groups but was shorter than in the remaining patients. CONCLUSIONS: 1. HBP is used in CRT-D systems for resynchronisation of the failing heart in 33.33%. 2. Extraction of HBP leads is most frequently performed for non-infectious indications (59.26%) and most often because of lead dysfunction (33.33%). 3. The extraction of "old" (>40 months) HBP leads is longer (8.57 vs. 3.87 min) and more difficult than the removal of "young" leads due to unexpected procedure difficulties (14.29%) and the use of second line/advanced tools (28.57%), but it does not entail the risk of major complications and procedure-related death and is comparable to those encountered in the extraction of LVP leads of a similar age. 4. Survival after lead extraction was comparable between HBP and LVP groups but shorter compared to patients who underwent the removal of other leads.

Mid-term performance of His bundle pacing and usefulness of backup leads.

Ventricular backup leads may be considered in selected patients with His bundle pacing (HBP), but it remains unknown to what extent this is useful. A total of 184 HBP patients were studied. At last follow-up, 147 (79.9%) patients retained His bundle capture at programmed output. His bundle pacing lead revision was performed in 5/36 (13.9%) patients without a backup lead and in 3/148 (2.0%) patients with a backup lead (P = 0.008). One patient without a backup lead had syncope due to atrial oversensing. Thus, implantation of ventricular backup leads may avoid lead revision and adverse events in selected HBP patients.

Outcomes with physiologic His bundle pacing in patients with narrow QRS complex.

BACKGROUND: In patients with narrow QRS complex, both ventricular and biventricular pacing is associated with increased cardiac morbidity and mortality. This risk is not decreased by ventricular pacing avoidance algorithms, which cause nonphysiologic atrioventricular (AV) delays. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to report outcomes in patients with narrow QRS complex when the paced complex is in normal range and physiologic AV delays are programmed. METHODS: In 196 patients with QRS duration of 92 ± 10 ms, permanent pacing was done at the site of the His bundle electrogram. The pacemakers were then programmed to maintain physiologic AV delays and to increase heart rates in response to exercise. Patients received usual care and were observed for 3 years. RESULTS: The paced complex exhibited a delta wave, and the ventricular activation time, QRS axis, and lead I voltage remained in normal range. Physiologic programming resulted in His bundle pacing burden of 92%. In patients with decreased ejection fraction, there was significant improvement in left ventricular function, left ventricular dilation, and mitral regurgitation (P < .003). In patients with normal ejection fraction, left ventricular function remained normal without new valvular abnormalities. The 3-year all-cause mortality was 10%, and there was no increase in heart failure admissions. CONCLUSION: In patients with narrow QRS complex, when paced QRS morphology is maintained in normal range and AV dyssynchrony is avoided, His bundle pacing is associated with low all-cause mortality and improvement in abnormal echocardiographic parameters. The paced QRS morphology and physiologic AV delays may be important factors to evaluate in future trials of conduction system pacing.

Current role of Conduction System Pacing in Patients Requiring Permanent Pacing.

His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) are novel methods of pacing directly pacing the cardiac conduction system. HBP while developed more than two decades ago, only recently moved into the clinical mainstream. In contrast to conventional cardiac pacing, conduction system pacing including HBP and LBBP utilizes the native electrical system of the heart to rapidly disseminate the electrical impulse and generate a more synchronous ventricular contraction. Widespread adoption of conduction system pacing has resulted in a wealth of observational data, registries, and some early randomized controlled clinical trials. While much remains to be learned about conduction system pacing and its role in electrophysiology, data available thus far is very promising. In this review of conduction system pacing, the authors review the emergence of conduction system pacing and its contemporary role in patients requiring permanent cardiac pacing.

A His bundle pacing protocol for suppressing ventricular arrhythmia maintenance and improving defibrillation efficacy.

BACKGROUND: The excitable gap (EG), defined as the excitable tissue between two subsequent wavefronts of depolarization, is critical for maintaining reentry that underlies deadly ventricular arrhythmias. EG in the His-Purkinje Network (HPN) plays an important role in the maintenance of electrical wave reentry that underlies these arrhythmias. OBJECTIVE: To determine if rapid His bundle pacing (HBP) during reentry reduces the amount of EG in the HPN and ventricular myocardium to suppress reentry maintenance and/or improve defibrillation efficacy. METHODS: In a virtual human biventricular model, reentry was initiated with rapid line pacing followed by HBP delivered for 3, 6, or 9 s at pacing cycle lengths (PCLs) ranging from 10 to 300 ms (n=30). EG was calculated independently for the HPN and myocardium over each PCL. Defibrillation efficacy was assessed for each PCL by stimulating myocardial surface EG with delays ranging from 0.25 to 9 s (increments of 0.25 s, n=36) after the start of HBP. Defibrillation was successful if reentry terminated within 1 s after EG stimulation. This defibrillation protocol was repeated without HBP. To test the approach under different pathological conditions, all protocols were repeated in the model with right (RBBB) or left (LBBB) bundle branch block. RESULTS: Compared to without pacing, HBP for >3 seconds reduced average EG in the HPN and myocardium across a broad range of PCLs for the default, RBBB, and LBBB models. HBP >6 seconds terminated reentrant arrhythmia by converting HPN activation to a sinus rhythm behavior in the default (6/30 PCLs) and RBBB (7/30 PCLs) models. Myocardial EG stimulation during HBP increased the number of successful defibrillation attempts by 3%-19% for 30/30 PCLs in the default model, 3%-6% for 14/30 PCLs in the RBBB model, and 3%-11% for 27/30 PCLs in the LBBB model. CONCLUSION: HBP can reduce the amount of excitable gap and suppress reentry maintenance in the HPN and myocardium. HBP can also improve the efficacy of low-energy defibrillation approaches targeting excitable myocardium. HBP during reentrant arrhythmias is a promising anti-arrhythmic and defibrillation strategy.

Is Conduction System Pacing a Valuable Alternative to Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) significantly improves clinical outcomes in patients with ventricular systolic dysfunction and dyssynchrony. Biventricular pacing (BVP) has a class IA recommendation for patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, approximately 30% of patients have a poor therapeutic response and do not achieve real clinical benefit. Pre-implant imaging, together with tailored programming and dedicated device algorithms, have been proposed as possible tools to improve success rate but have shown inconsistent results. Over the last few years, conduction system pacing (CSP) is becoming a real and attractive alternative to standard BVP as it can restore narrow QRS in patients with bundle branch block (BBB) by stimulating and recruiting the cardiac conduction system, thus ensuring true resynchronization. It includes His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Preliminary data coming from small single-center experiences are very promising and have laid the basis for currently ongoing randomized controlled trials comparing CSP with BVP. The purpose of this review is to delve into the emerging role of CSP as an alternative method of achieving CRT. After framing CSP in a historical perspective, the pathophysiological rationale and available clinical evidence will be examined, and crucial technical aspects will be discussed. Finally, evidence gaps and future perspectives on CSP as a technique of choice to deliver CRT will be summarized.

Transvenous extraction of conduction system pacing leads: An international multicenter (TECSPAM) study.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) by His bundle pacing or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is incorporated into Heart Rhythm Society guidelines for the management of bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Despite increasing adoption with both lumenless leads and stylet-driven leads, concerns regarding the feasibility and safety of the extraction of CSP leads remain. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to report on the safety, feasibility, and clinical outcomes of the extraction of CSP leads. METHODS: Patients undergoing the extraction of CSP leads from 10 international centers were enrolled in this retrospective study. Data regarding indications, lead location, lead type, extraction tools, procedural success, complications, and reimplantation in the conduction system were collected. RESULTS: Overall, 341 patients (age 69 ± 15 years; female 34%; cardiomyopathy 46%; lead dwell time 22 ± 26 months) underwent the extraction of 224 His bundle pacing and 117 LBBAP leads (lumenless leads 321; stylet-driven leads 20). Complete procedural success was achieved in 338 (99%), while clinical success was 100% with retained distal fragments in 3 patients (1%). Among patients with a lead dwell time of >6 months (6-193 months; n = 226), manual extraction was successful in 198 (87%), mechanical tools in 22 (10%), and laser in 6 (3%). Femoral tools were necessary in 3 patients. Minor complications occurred in 7 patients (2.1%). CSP reimplantation was successful in 233 of 244 patients attempted (95%). CONCLUSION: The overall success rates of the extraction of CSP leads were very high (although the LBBAP lead dwell time was <3 years), with a low need for extraction tools and minimal complication. Reimplantation in the conduction system is feasible and safe.

His potential injury as the end point of screwing by a continuous recording technique in His bundle pacing: A case report.

BACKGROUND: His bundle pacing (HBP) engaged electrical activation of both ventricles by stimulating the His-Purkinje network, which could avoid marked ventricles dyssynchrony. The lead was given three to five clockwise rotations at the site with the His potential to anchor the interventricular septum. In 2018, the Multicenter His Bundle Pacing Collaborative Working Group recommended that the His bundle capture threshold should be lower than 2.5 V/1 ms in non-pacing-dependent patients, and pacing-dependent patients should have a lower adjacent ventricular capture threshold as self-backup. Therefore, to avoid safety issues such as loss of capture caused by increased threshold, we believe that more stringent criteria should be adopted in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). In previous studies, the connection cable needed to be disconnected during the screwing. When the procedure was finished, the performer found that the patients with His bundle injury could obtain a lower threshold than those without His bundle injury. Although no studies of new bundle branch block (BBB) or AVB by the acute His bundle injury was reported. However, It is worrying that the damage of His bundle seems random during the procedure. How to balance avoiding severe injury with a lower capture threshold? At present, we report a case of light His injury and lower His capture threshold under continuous intracardiac electrocardiogram monitoring.

Enhancing cardiac pacing strategies: a review of conduction system pacing compared with right and biventricular pacing and their influence on myocardial function.

Traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been linked to the deterioration of both left ventricular diastolic and systolic function. This worsening often culminates in elevated rates of hospitalization due to heart failure, an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, and increased morbidity. While biventricular pacing (BVP) has demonstrated clinical and echocardiographic improvements in patients afflicted with heart failure and left bundle branch block, it has also encountered significant challenges such as a notable portion of non-responders and procedural failures attributed to anatomical complexities. In recent times, the interest has shifted towards conduction system pacing, initially, His bundle pacing, and more recently, left bundle branch area pacing, which are seen as promising alternatives to established methods. In contrast to other approaches, conduction system pacing offers the advantage of fostering more physiological and harmonized ventricular activation by directly stimulating the His-Purkinje network. This direct pacing results in a more synchronized systolic and diastolic function of the left ventricle compared with RVP and BVP. Of particular note is the capacity of conduction system pacing to yield a shorter QRS, conserve left ventricular ejection fraction, and reduce rates of mitral and tricuspid regurgitation when compared with RVP. The efficacy of conduction system pacing has also been found to have better clinical and echocardiographic improvement than BVP in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization. This review will delve into myocardial function in conduction system pacing compared with that in RVP and BVP.

Outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to His bundle pacing and right ventricular apical pacing in Japanese patients with bradycardia.

Background: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) emerge as better alternatives to right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP) in patients with bradycardia requiring permanent cardiac pacing. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of LBBAP, HBP, and RVAP in Japanese patients with bradycardia. Methods: A total of 424 patients who underwent successful pacemaker implantation (HBP, n = 53; LBBAP, n = 75; and RVAP, n = 296) were retrospectively enrolled in this study. The primary study endpoint was the cumulative incidence of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) during the follow-up. Results: The success rate for implantation was higher in the LBBAP group than in the HBP group (94.9% and 81.5%, respectively). Capture threshold increase >1V during the follow-up occurred in the HBP and RVAP groups (9.4% and 5.1%, respectively), while it did not in the LBBAP group. The cumulative incidence of HFH was significantly lower in the LBBAP group than the RVAP (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.12 [95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.86]; p = .034); it did not differ between the HBP and RVAP groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% confidence interval: 0.17-1.34]; p = .16). Advanced age, mean percent right ventricular pacing (per 10% increase), left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, and RVAP were associated with HFH. Conclusions: Compared to RVAP and HBP, LBBAP appeared more feasible and effective in patients with bradycardia requiring permanent cardiac pacing.

Therapeutic potential of conduction system pacing as a method for improving cardiac output during ventricular tachycardia.

BACKGROUND: Ventricular tachycardia (VT) reduces cardiac output through high heart rates, loss of atrioventricular synchrony, and loss of ventricular synchrony. We studied the contribution of each mechanism and explored the potential therapeutic utility of His bundle pacing to improve cardiac output during VT. METHODS: Study 1 aimed to improve the understanding of mechanisms of harm during VT (using pacing simulated VT). In 23 patients with left ventricular impairment, we recorded continuous ECG and beat-by-beat blood pressure measurements. We assessed the hemodynamic impact of heart rate and restoration of atrial and biventricular synchrony. Study 2 investigated novel pacing interventions during clinical VT by evaluating the hemodynamic effects of His bundle pacing at 5 bpm above the VT rate in 10 patients. RESULTS: In Study 1, at progressively higher rates of simulated VT, systolic blood pressure declined: at rates of 125, 160, and 190 bpm, -22.2%, -42.0%, and -58.7%, respectively (ANOVA p < 0.0001). Restoring atrial synchrony alone had only a modest beneficial effect on systolic blood pressure (+ 3.6% at 160 bpm, p = 0.2117), restoring biventricular synchrony alone had a greater effect (+ 9.1% at 160 bpm, p = 0.242), and simultaneously restoring both significantly increased systolic blood pressure (+ 31.6% at 160 bpm, p = 0.0003). In Study 2, the mean rate of clinical VT was 143 ± 21 bpm. His bundle pacing increased systolic blood pressure by + 14.2% (p = 0.0023). In 6 of 10 patients, VT terminated with His bundle pacing. CONCLUSIONS: Restoring atrial and biventricular synchrony improved hemodynamic function in simulated and clinical VT. Conduction system pacing could improve VT tolerability and treatment.

Output-dependent His bundle pacing: Unexpected His-Purkinje system pathology unmasking.

The anatomy of the His-Purkinje system has been studied, yet there remains a knowledge gap regarding the impact of His bundle pacing and its electrocardiographic implications. This case report highlights the presence of His-Purkinje system pathology without apparent clues on the surface electrocardiogram (EKG). By observing identical QRS morphology with varying HV intervals resulting from different pacing outputs, we demonstrate the presence of an electrical propagation block within the His bundle.

"Ablate and Pace" with Conduction System Pacing: Concomitant versus Delayed Atrioventricular Junction Ablation.

Objectives: Conduction system pacing (CSP) and atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) improve the outcomes in patients with symptomatic, refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). In this setting, AVJA can be performed simultaneously with implantation or in a second procedure a few weeks after implantation. Comparison data on these two alternative strategies are lacking. Methods: A prospective, multicentre, observational study enrolled consecutive patients with symptomatic, refractory AF undergoing CSP and AVJA performed in a single procedure or in two separate procedures. Data on the long-term outcomes and healthcare resource utilization were prospectively collected. Results: A total of 147 patients were enrolled: for 105 patients, CSP implantation and AVJA were performed simultaneously (concomitant AVJA); in 42, AVJA was performed in a second procedure, with a mean of 28.8 ± 19.3 days from implantation (delayed AVJA). After a mean follow-up of 12 months, the rate of procedure-related complications was similar in both groups (3.8% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.666). Concomitant AVJA was associated with a lower number of procedure-related hospitalizations per patient (1.0 ± 0.1 vs. 2.0 ± 0.3; p < 0.001) and with a lower number of hospital treatment days per patient (4.7 ± 1.8 vs. 7.4 ± 1.9; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Concomitant AVJA resulted as being as safe as delayed AVJA and was associated with a lower utilization of healthcare resources.

Impact on nurse workload and patient satisfaction of atrioventricular junction ablation performed simultaneously with conduction system pacing using a superior approach from the pocket compared to the conventional femoral approach.

AIMS: Conduction system pacing (CSP) and atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) improve outcomes in patients with symptomatic, refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). Superior approach (SA) from the pocket, via axillary or subclavian vein, has been recently proposed as an alternative to the conventional femoral venous approach (FA) to perform AVJA. In this study we compared the impact of these alternative approaches on the nurse workload (NWL) and on patient satisfaction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective, observational study, enrolling consecutive patients undergoing simultaneous CSP and AVJA. ElectrophysiologyLaboratory (EP Lab) NWL was calculated with a self-developed model. Ward NWL was calculated using the MIDENF® validated scale. Patient satisfaction was collected using the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Provider Systems (HCAHPS) questionnaire. A total of 119 patients were enrolled: in 50, AVJA was primarily attempted with SA, in 69 from FA. Compared to FA, SA was associated with a lower EP Lab NWL (169.8±26.7 vs. 202.7±38.9 minutes; p<0.001), and a lower Ward NWL (474.5±184.8 vs. 808.6±289.9 minutes; p<0.001). Multivariate analysis identified SA as an independent predictor of lower EP Lab NWL (hazard ratio 4.60; p=0.001), and of lower Ward NWL (hazard ratio 45.13; p<0.001). Compared to FA, SA was associated with a higher patient-reported rating regarding the experience during hospital stay (p=0.035), and the overall hospital evaluation (p=0.026). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing simultaneous CSP and AVJA, the use of a SA for ablation is a valid alternative to conventional FA. Compared to FA, this approach significantly reduces NWL, and is associated with greater patient satisfaction.